Notes on:
Pask, G. (1976) 'Styles and Strategies of
Learning'. In British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 46: 128-48.
Dave Harris
Conversations require conversational domains with
entailment structures and behaviour graphs [see earlier article].
Ideally, each topic should have its own behaviour
graph, describing what is to be done to model or
explain a topic. Learning a topic is an
essential requirement for the sort of depth
processing advocated by Marton and Saljo (M and
S). We can define a concept as 'the
procedure for realizing a topic relation', and
memory as 'a procedure for reproducing a concept'
(128).
A number of experiments are reported. Some
measured learning styles according to retention
tests, and different teaching strategies and
learning strategies were compared [see some
possible examples here].
Understanding takes place when a lecturer gives an
explanation and a derivation [from other
concepts]. This means that retention is a
good test of understanding. There are
different learning styles [holist and serialist
ones, described in the earlier
article], and some more detail is given of
how the strategies produced different sorts of
descriptions of networks [the task is learning the
taxonomy of Martian fauna again]. Matching
different teaching styles to particular learning
strategies is desirable, and 'mismatched students
acquire hardly any relevant knowledge'
(132). However, sometimes students feel that
they ought to use a particular approach, and
'there is a strong institutional bias to structure
material [in a serialist way], and most
examinations favour serial recall'. However,
the holist approach resembles M and S's deep
approach (132).
There is a hard core of evidence on the importance
of learning styles. Bruner, Guildford, and Kagan
have all developed work on the difference between
impulsive and reflective styles, for example,
while Within et al. have talked about the
differences between field dependent and field
independent approaches [others are summarized on
page 132]. The holist or serialist dimension
reflects a strategy rather than a style, however,
and can be exhibited only where there is a 'strict
[logically structured] conversation'. In
normal conditions, holists appear as
'comprehension learners', while serialists appear
as 'operation learners' (133), and some students
can be both—'versatile'. Comprehension
learners easily pick up the overall picture of the
subject matter, and can see, for example,
redundancies in a taxonomic scheme.
Operation learners pick up on rules, details and
methods, but are 'often unaware of how they fit
together', which can produce arbitrary or
accidental learning procedures. Both need
explicit procedures. Both are necessary for
understanding. So everyone needs expert
diagnosis and teaching.
Further experiments on the taxonomies are reported
133f, including more details of TEACHBACK
(see earlier piece) ,
where students are required to explain and give an
account of their learning procedures. These
are then content analyzed.'Falsehoods',
inventions, requests for information, deductions,
irrelevant statements and redundant statements are
all identified. Those groups that featured
matched instruction did better.
Other experiments have described using other
procedures. One tested 'real life'
comprehension or operational styles.
Students were required to recall the history of a
spy ring [another taxonomy?]. 65 students
from Henley Grammar school, 40 students from the
Architectural Association School, and another 50
students from various schools and colleges were
recruited. It's possible to describe some of
their understandings as 'deep' [actually, for six
of them], and this approach can also be described
as involving description and procedure building
[with this lingering division between logical and
empirical truths]. Insisting on both of
these building procedures avoided the
'pathologies' of either approach [not surprising
because understanding has already been defined as
including both, with holists good at description,
and serialists good at procedure]. By
contrast, if explanations are to be tested by
multi choice exams, even a 'surface' understanding
will do (143).
Versatiles performed well, but if they were placed
in self study conditions, with little conversation
[ on the basis of the structured conversational
domain explained earlier]
, explanation was often 'replaced by a correct
response condition' [that is, they try to work out
what the right answers were?]. In self study
conditions, holists get the right answer but can
'globe trot', adding in all sorts of
irrelevancies. Serialists also get right
answers, but these can be 'improvident', that is
'no longer supported by an adequate descriptive
scheme' (143).
There is an additional benefit to properly
organized conversational learning, since it
permits a transfer from one subject matter to
another. This is because the learner learns
about their own mental processes. However,
conversational learning is not like ordinary
learning, which has already been structured [by
the subjective conventions of academics?].
Learning to learn involves both versatility and
the ability to structure material. This was
tested out with a sample of 24 6th form and
college of education students: they were given
some information and then tested on list of
concepts, by being asked to pick any that they
felt they could explain, and then asked to join
any connections. Their decisions were then
discussed through 'a non technical presentation of
principles derived from CASTE' (144). Then
they were retested. Then they moved on to
the task involving the spy ring. The results
do show improvements in performance, although the
versatiles were good anyway. 'Important
practical implications for education are beginning
to emerge' (146).
Back to education
studies
|
|